|
Scenario #1: To someone who is distrustful of political party machines and having our candidate selected for us, who supports hearing not only the voice of the people, but ensuring minority voices are heard, we understand this rule. It gives the nod to smaller states with diverse geographic and cultural representation to have earlier primaries so their issues don't get drowned out by the bigger states.
Then draws a line in the sand and says "No more. Period." Thank heavens. Otherwise, where will the leapfroggin end? How long are we going to stretch out the presidential election season? It's already much too long. It diverts attention and energy away from important issues. This HAD to be done. A vote of 50 states' parties agreed.
There may be problems with this setup to argue, but it is fundamentally a GOOD rule for democratic principles. Attempts to circumvent or break this rule smells reeks of corporate, establishment power trying to maintain their choke-hold on power. Large population swing states, especially the Florida cash cow - complaining about a lack of representation simply doesn't hold water. We see local Democratic officeholders -- all of them supporting the same inevitable establishment candidate - colluding with Republicans with full knowledge of the consequences going public an openly fomenting intra-party division and resentment among Democratic voters. They're even willing to disenfranchise their own states' voters and cloak themselves in "voice of the voter" rhetoric? It's disgraceful. This is fundamentally anti-democratic and any liberal immediately recognizes the divide and conquer strategy used to dampen our collective voice.
The biggest issue is the voters of Florida and Michigan. They are the victims and efforts need to be made to see that they have a say. There is no good solution at this point, but is MUST be compromise. I support the ostensible principles behind the four early state exemptions and FULLY support the line in the sand preventing primaries from moving earlier and earlier.
In my opinion, this rule should be followed. However, I'm a big believer in scrutinizing the rules according to principles. Rules are often made by people with powerful self-interests. I'm all for civil disobedience and defying unjust rules. That's the case you need to make if you're arguing to break this rule and seat the delegates. I don't see how anyone but the people of Florida and Michigan are served while all the other 48 states who followed this rule are pushed aside by two big states wanting to front-load their interests by breaking the rule. If you want to make the case made for seating their delegates, speak to my principles.
Scenario #2: Superdelegates? Yes, there are rules about superdelegates, but they clearly go against democratic principles. They don't seemed designed to give more say underrepresented voices? So what is their purpose? If we have a good, strong, bottom up, grassroots Democratic Party, I don't see why any are needed at all, but as it is superdelegates are close to 40% of the total. That isn't designed to represent the people. It looks suspiciously designed to ensure the people make the "right" choice and to override us if we don't. If the superdelegates override the voice of the people, our suspicions will be confirms. Why bother even voting if it doesn't matter? This is a fundamentally anti-democratic rule that MUST be fixed. If you want to argue that this is a good rule, speak to my principles.
|